| Historical Institutionalism |
Article Index for Historical |
Website Links For Historical |
Information AboutHistorical Institutionalism |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT HISTORICAL INSTITUTIONALISM | |
| political science terms | |
| subfields of political science | |
|
Borrowing from Charles Tilly (1984), historical institutionalism is a method apt for measuring "big structures, large processes, and {Link without Title} huge comparisons". Historical Institutionalism has generated some of the most important books in the fields of sociology, political science and economics. In fact, some of these studies have inspired policy and its scholars have received numerous awards. Although historical institutionalism proper is fairly new (circa 1979), it identifies with the great traditions in history, philosophy, politics, sociology and economics. OLD AND NEW INSTITUTIONALISM 's arguments relied on " Social Classes ", Weber on " Bureaucracy ", Durkheim on " the Division Of Labor ", Thorstein Veblen on " Consumption ". This is often called "old institutionalism". During the 1950s, Structural-functionalism blurred the study of institutions. They were more concerned about the variability of the Modernization process across countries and about prescribing and generalizing at the systemic level rather than acknowledging the different paths that Development can take. (i.e. Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba , ''The Civic Culture''). The new institutionalism begins with the works of . As stated above, before HI arrived, institutions were only treated as the formal rules of behavior (i.e. the law). In contrast, historical institutionalism has loosened the definition of institutions. In this new approach, institutions can take the shape of a formal bureaucratic structure but also an ideology or an informal costume. The significance of this change of approach is that historical institutionalism denies that power and history have only one source as past approaches (i.e. the State) and has given agency to all kinds of social groups and behaviors (i.e. In "Weapons of the Weak" James Scott acknowledges the power of "gossip" in political life.) In emphasizing the participation of all kind of groups, not just elites or the state, historical institutionalism offers a dynamic approach to history. Moreover, HI avoids prescription. On the contrary, since historical institutionalism is interested in the richness and different paths that a Revolution or an Economic Reform can take given that different groups participate in each case, they are sensitive to the differences that can occur when following a particular political design (i.e. democracy). In that sense, it also avoids the teleological determinism of past approaches. For historical institutionalism, the actors both determined by and are producers of history. THE TREATMENT OF HISTORY The concept that history moves forward and that there is a progression in time that leads from point A to point B, can be traced back to Hegel and Marx . However, historical institutionalists have revolutionized the way in which history is analyzed. They do not believe in the linearity of history as Hegel and others did. Instead, they choose to specify the conditions in which a particular trajectory in time was followed and not others. Thus, specifying the paths not taken is as important as specifying the actual trajectory of history. As opposed to the old institutionalists, they accept the fact that history will not necessarily lead to a "happy" outcome (i.e. " Communism or Democracy as the end of history)". The most basic concept with which historical institutionalist work is with the concept of Path Dependence . Theda Skocpol and Paul Pierson write that path dependence does not have yet a clear definition, but can express the idea that “outcomes at a ‘critical juncture’ trigger feedback mechanisms or positive that reinforce the recurrence of a particular pattern into the future.” In their view, the significance of path dependence is that: :"once actors have ventured far down a particular path, they are likely to find it very difficult to reverse course…The “path not taken” or the political alternatives that were once quite plausible may become irretrievably lost. ‘Path dependence analysis’ highlights the role of what Arthur Stinchcombe has termed ‘historical causation’ in which dynamics triggered by an event or process at one point in time reproduce themselves, even in the absence of the recurrence of the original event or process". (Skocpol and Pierson, 2002: 665-6) SOME PROBLEMS Historical institutionalism is not a unified intellectual enterprise (see also New Institutionalism ). Some scholars are oriented towards treating history as the outcome of rational and purposeful behavior based on the idea of equilibrium (see Rational Choice ). They rely heavily on quantitative approaches. Others, more qualitative oriented scholars, reject the idea of rationality and instead emphasize the idea that randomness and accidents matter in political and social outcomes. (see Steinmo 2001). There are unsolvable Epistemological differences between both approaches (see Bates et.al., 1998). However given the historicity of both approaches, and given their focus on institutions, both can fall under "historical institutionalism" .
MAJOR INSTITUTIONALIST FIGURES AND BOOKS
REFERENCES
|
|
|